Patrick Boylan wrote:Philadelphia, by the way, has long had a rule that trolleys must stop before all facing point switches, as well as before entering each of their 2 green line subway portals and before the junction. At least one of those spots had a smashboard coupled with a derailing device, I'm not sure if that still exists, or if it was set to derail even if the offending operator ignored the stop whether there was a trolley on the converging track or not.

There is/was just a smash board, no derailing device. I have seen them smashed up. I am not sure if they are still in place as they put a signal system in, but I know it was operating part time since it was had so many issues.

boblothrope wrote:Why was a trolley stopped in front? Because the signal system's throughput was inadequate for the number of trains they were running. And a big contributor to that is unnecessary stops.

A big contributor to that is stops, for sure. But that doesn't make them unnecessary.

Mbta fan wrote:Yeah but, how can someone assume that if they get rid of these more people will ride the greenline.

Basic economics. If they make the T faster, some people will switch to it.

Mbta fan wrote:All the times we stopped in the tunnel was due to a trolley in front of us. Not these red signals.

Why was a trolley stopped in front? Because the signal system's throughput was inadequate for the number of trains they were running. And a big contributor to that is unnecessary stops.

Bob, the trolley in front of us was stopped because the day of the rolling rally the T was running the subway system at rush hour levels. And the green line was over crowded due to stops being along the rally route and kenmore station is just on the other side of the pike from Fenway. It was in no part due to the signal system, it was the amount of trolleys in the central subway that caused the starts and stops. I'm no expert on the green line since I rarely go into town that much right now. I had no complaints with the service that day. They did the best they could and I got where I needed to be in a decent amount of time.(only rode between park st and Kenmore)

Mbta fan wrote:Yeah but, how can someone assume that if they get rid of these more people will ride the greenline.

Basic economics. If they make the T faster, some people will switch to it.

Mbta fan wrote:All the times we stopped in the tunnel was due to a trolley in front of us. Not these red signals.

Why was a trolley stopped in front? Because the signal system's throughput was inadequate for the number of trains they were running. And a big contributor to that is unnecessary stops.

Bob, the trolley in front of us was stopped because the day of the rolling rally the T was running the subway system at rush hour levels. And the green line was over crowded due to stops being along the rally route and kenmore station is just on the other side of the pike from Fenway. It was in no part due to the signal system, it was the amount of trolleys in the central subway that caused the starts and stops. I'm no expert on the green line since I rarely go into town that much right now. I had no complaints with the service that day. They did the best they could and I got where I needed to be in a decent amount of time.(only rode between park st and Kenmore)

One ride on the Green Line during a major event is not a great example. Why not use a stop sign instead? At least with the stop sign you could speed up the stop and proceed. It's been awhile since I regularly rode the Green Line to and from Science Park but I seem to remember a stop sign between Science Park and the North Station Yard. This is by no means an ideal solution but it could help until the signal system is upgraded.

The signals act as stop signs but also control the speed to the next block. If the block is clear ahead the signal will go from stop to clear(or whatever the max it can display), if the block is occupied not it will hold at stop or go to their version of stop and proceed(train ahead inside the block). Each one of these stop sign type signals have a different situation.

sery2831 wrote:The signals act as stop signs but also control the speed to the next block. If the block is clear ahead the signal will go from stop to clear(or whatever the max it can display), if the block is occupied not it will hold at stop or go to their version of stop and proceed(train ahead inside the block). Each one of these stop sign type signals have a different situation.

Ah I was under the impression that these signals just slowed the trolley down and did not display block occupancy.

boblothrope wrote:Why was a trolley stopped in front? Because the signal system's throughput was inadequate for the number of trains they were running...

Or because it or one ahead of it was picking up passengers since, you know, trolleys do that on occasion.

So now we're stating that bad signals are the only things trains stop for? Great, remove the signals and the cars can run express from terminus to terminus! It won't provide much of a service, but let me tell you on time performance will be unblemished!

Red Wing wrote:Ah I was under the impression that these signals just slowed the trolley down and did not display block occupancy.

Some hold red until a car comes up to it. Others stay clear until knocked down. Either way, the signal will not clear up if there's a train in the next block or, in the case of junctions, an impending opposing movement.

Mbta fan wrote:Yeah but, how can someone assume that if they get rid of these more people will ride the greenline.

There are lots of people who may try the Greenline for whatever reason. Once they miss that doctor's appointment, airplane or train, or are late for that new job, job interview, first pitch or puck drop, they just might be in the "never again" category and will make other arrangements the next time.

There are so many ways the Greenline can and does fail every day (disabled trains, faulty signals, inoperable switches, catenary problems, etc.), the MBTA should at least avoid intentional delays.

That's the capitalistic attitude we're used to hearing from private companies trying to tow their bottom line as far as they can. "We need to encourage as many people as possible to ride to bring in the most revenue." For a for profit entity, this is the way to go (although carefully, you don't want to blow up too quickly and end up like Krispy Kreme). For the T, while discouraging ridership is bad, it's more of a balancing act.

The Authority has X number of train cars, buses, streetcars, etc. It also has a fairly rigidly fixed infrastructure situation. There's a capacity at which the green line is already teetering. Ridership has done nothing but go up despite fare increases and the atrocious opinion bestowed upon the locality by the Boston Herald (et al). Serving the ridership as it exists should be their priority, not increasing it. Again, that's not to say that an increasing ridership is something to discourage, but it's not a priority. It certainly isn't as though they're struggling to justify continuing the service.

Mbta fan wrote:Yeah but, how can someone assume that if they get rid of these more people will ride the greenline.

There are lots of people who may try the Greenline for whatever reason. Once they miss that doctor's appointment, airplane or train, or are late for that new job, job interview, first pitch or puck drop, they just might be in the "never again" category and will make other arrangements the next time.

There are so many ways the Greenline can and does fail every day (disabled trains, faulty signals, inoperable switches, catenary problems, etc.), the MBTA should at least avoid intentional delays.

Whoa, how can this be called an intentional delay? That's BS right there. Let me get this right, u would rather be on a trolley that rounds a blind curve that had a signal(you want to get rid of them) and possibly run into a stopped trolley?

Mbta fan wrote:Yeah but, how can someone assume that if they get rid of these more people will ride the greenline.

There are lots of people who may try the Greenline for whatever reason. Once they miss that doctor's appointment, airplane or train, or are late for that new job, job interview, first pitch or puck drop, they just might be in the "never again" category and will make other arrangements the next time.

There are so many ways the Greenline can and does fail every day (disabled trains, faulty signals, inoperable switches, catenary problems, etc.), the MBTA should at least avoid intentional delays.

Whoa, how can this be called an intentional delay? That's BS right there. Let me get this right, u would rather be on a trolley that rounds a blind curve that had a signal(you want to get rid of them) and possibly run into a stopped trolley?

BTW - I don't do BS.

BTW2 - That's what block signals are for!

Time for you to cool it. I know you don't want to accept it, but these are for slowing service down, PERIOD.

The T just added a new one of these inbound before Symphony. No blind curve and very open sight lines. Again, it's just to slow things down.

Take a ride back and forth between Copley and Prudential and you will see three of the most severe blind curves on the system. It's a tight twisting reverse curve both ways, 20-25 mph speed limit, yet no "safety signals" needed there.